iitry, were endued with miraculous gifts immediately upon their believing and before they were baptized; for they fpake with tongues and glorified God. (Acts x. 44.) Nor is it improbable but fome of them then received gifts for the miniftry; and if fo, in the fulness of their hearts and the tranfport of their joy, they also gave the first fpecimen of their future miniftrations, to the pleafing aftonishment of Peter and those that were with him. But can our brethren fuppofe, that the great apostle would have taken equal pleafure in hearing them request a place at the Lord's table, before they were baptized? No; his own conduct oppofes the thought. For, having beheld with aftonifhment the gifts they received, and hearing with rapture the truths they delivered," he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord;" to be baptized immediately in the name of that Lord, who requires a fubmiffion to the ordinance from all that believe.

Once more: A very competent judge of all that pertains to the minifterial character, and of all that belongs to a Chriftian profeffion, has left his opinion on record concerning the ministry of certain perfons, whom he confidered as quite unworthy of his intimate friendship. Yes, Paul, that most excellent man, when acting as amanuenfis, to the Spirit of wifdom, and when speaking of fome who preached the gofp informs us, that envy and frife were the principles on which they acted, and the increase of his afflictions the end which they had in view. How carnal and bafe the principles! How deteftable the end at which they aimed-But was the apostle offended or

grieved, fo as to wish they were filenced? Or, did he charge his beloved Philippians, and all the fincere followers of Chrift, never to hear them? Let his own declaration answer the queries. "What then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Chrift is preached; and therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." (Philip. i. 15-18.) When a corrupted gofpel is preached, he afferts his apoftolic authority, and thunders out anathemas against the propagators of it. (Gal. i. 6-9.) Because, as God will not fet the feal of his bleffing to a falfehood, or fanctify a lie, it can do no good; it is pregnant with mischief. But when the pure gospel is preached, though on perverse principles, as it is the truth, God frequently owns and renders it ufeful, whoever may publifh it. Hence the apostle's joy in the text before us.--Now, as we are far from impeaching the fincerity of our Pædobaptist brethren, when preaching the gospel of our afçended Lord; and as Paul rejoiced that Chrift was preached, though by perfons who acted on the bafeft principles; we cannot imagine that he would have taken lefs pleasure in the thought of Pædobaptift minifters publishing the glorious gofpel of the bieffed God, had there been any fuch in thofe days, even though he might have confidered them as under a great mistake, in regard to baptifm: for our opponents do not believe, any more than we, that Paul knew any thing of infant sprinkling. And if fo, we may fafely conclude, that there is nothing inconfiftent with our hypothefis, in occafionally admitting Pedobaptift minifters into our pulpits, and hearing them with pleasure.But will our opponents affert, or can they suppose, that the great apoftle of the Gentiles would have

encouraged with equal delight fuch perfons as thofe of whom he speaks, to approach the holy table and have communion with him in all the ordi nances of God's houfe? Perfons, who made the glorious gospel of the bleffed God the vehicle of their own pride, and envy, and malice; and in whofe conduct those infernal tempers reigned, and had for their immediate object one of the most excellent and useful men that ever lived? Certainly, if on any occafion, we may here adopt the old proverb; Credat Judæus appella.

66

Chrift is preached, and therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice," Difinterested, noble faying! Worthy of a first rate minister in the Meffiah's kingdom; worthy of Paul; who cared not who opposed him, nor what he suffered, if Chrift were but glorified in the converfion of finners,

But

though that man of God thus expreises himself, in reference to gospel preaching, I cannot imagine, nor will our brethren affirm, that he would with the fame pleasure have admitted any of the Jewish converts to communion, because they fuppofed themselves to have been baptized, merely on account of their having been washed according to the traditions of the elders. To a request of this kind, his mildest answer, we have reason to think, would have been, "We have no fuch custom, nor the churches of God." Yet, as Baptifts, our op ponents must consider infant sprinkling, as having nothing more to recommend it, than human authority and general practice; which were the grand recommendations of thofe Jewish washings, and the very basis on which they stood.-Suppose our brethren, in the courfe of their reading, were to find it afferted by fome ancient author, That Pau!

frequently admitted perfons to communion, on fuch a pretence to baptifm;' what would they fay? They would, I prefume, confider the affertion as a libel on his character. They would exe

crate the pen which tranfmitted fuch a falfehood to pofterity; and look on the writer, either as a weak and credulous man, or as a forger of lies. And except a predilection for free communion biaffed their judgment, their opinion and cenfure would be much the fame, were they to find it recorded; He fre quently admitted believers to the Lord's table, before they were baptized.' The utter filence of the New Teftament, relating to a conduct of this kind; the many paffages, in that infallible code of divine worship, inconfiftent with fuch a practice; and their veneration for the character of the great apostle, would oblige them fo to do. Yet, amazing to think! for fuch a procedure they plead; fuch a conduct they adopt; and look upon us as greatly injuring the honour and interests of real religion, and not a little contributing to the cause of infidelity, merely because we cannot confider them as the followers of Paul in this particular, nor become their humble imitators !

But why should our brethren fo earnestly plead for believers receiving the Lord's fupper, while they treat baptism as if it were a mere trifle; an appointment of Chrift that might very well have been fpared? What is there of obligation, of folemnity, of importance, in the former, that is not in the latter? Have they not the fame divine inftitutor, and the fame general end? Were they not ́intended for the fame perfons, and are they not equally permanent in the church of God? And as

baptifm, was not the administration of it by John,

one of the first characteristics of the Meffiah's appearance, and of the gofpel difpenfation commenc ing? Did not the King Meffiah fubmit to it, as an example of obedience to all his followers; and moft ftrongly recommend it to their judgment and confcience, their affections and practice, when he faid; "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteouf nefs?" Which, by the way, is more than can be afferted concerning the facred fupper; for though he inftituted it with great folemnity, yet we do not read that he partook of it.* Was not the admin

iftration of baptifm fo honoured at the river Jordan, when the great Immanuel submitted to it; when the eternal Father, by an audible voice, declared his approbation of it; and when the Divine Spirit defcended on the head of Jefus, just emerged from the water, as no other institution ever was? And does not the divinely prefcribed form of words that is used in its administration fhew, that there is a peculiar folemnity, an excellence, an importance in it? while, at the fame time, it fuggefts arguments of unanswerable force against thofe Antitrinitarian errors which now fo much abound. For no man who has been baptized at his own requeft, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft;" can deny that fundamental doctrine of the Trinity, without giving the lie to his baptifm.

Nor is it unlikely that this confideration may have inclined fome to oppofe the ordinance. believe one reafon,' fays Dr. Wall, why Socinus had fuch a mind to abolish all use of baptifm among his followers, was, because perfons baptized in the

*Wolfius in Luc. xxii. 18.